As per our meeting yesterday, I am summarizing information available to me
supporting allegations of a long pattern of fraud by Monsanto Corporation.
The fraud concerns 2,3,7,7-tetrachlorodibenzodi (dioxin) contamination of
Monsanto's dioxin-exposed workers. You indicated that you would contact me
regarding the specific documents which would be useful to your
investigation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF MONSANTO'S DIOXIN FRAUD

You stated that pursuing a criminal prosecution against Monsanto would
require a prior determination of the significance of the fraud. In order
for proceedings to be initiated by EPA, the fraud would need to have
affected the regulatory process at EPA and Monsanto would need to have
knowingly submitted the falsified data and health studies to EPA in order
to affect the regulatory process.

Monsanto has in fact submitted false information to EPA which directly
resulted in weakened regulations under RCRA and FIFRA since these
regulations do not take into account tetrachlorinated dioxin contamination
in trig, tetra, and pentachlorophenols, as well as 2,4-dichlorophenol and
its phenoxy acetate (2,3-D, a currently used herbicide). In addition,
Monsanto's failure to report dioxin contamination of the disinfectant in
Lysol has prevented any ban or other alleviation of human exposures to
dioxins in this product.

The Monsanto human health studies have been submitted to EPA by Monsanto as
part of public comments on proposed dioxin rules and Agency-wide dioxin
health studies are continually relied upon by all offices of EPA to
conclude that dioxins have not caused cancer or other health effects (other
than chloracne) in humans. Thus, dioxin has been given a lesser
carcinogenic potential ranking, which continues to be the basis of less
stringent regulations and lesser degrees of environmental controls. The
Monsanto studies in question also have been a key basis for denying
compensation to Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange and their children
suffering birth defects from such parental exposures. (1)

Monsanto would not be able to support a claim that independent researchers
were responsible for the falsifications, because Monsanto personnel
compiled all data utilized by these researchers. In addition the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences partially funded one of the
Monsanto studies in question providing a basis for charges of the
fraudulent use of governmental funds.

DIOXIN CONTAMINATION OF MONSANTO PRODUCTS

Monsanto covered-up the dioxin contamination of a wide range of its
products. Monsanto either failed to report contamination, substituted false
information purporting to show no contamination or submitted samples to the
government for analysis which had been specially prepared so that dioxin
contamination did not exist.

The earliest known effort by Monsanto to cover-up dioxin contamination of
its products involved the herbicide used in Vietnam Agent Orange (2,4, 5-
trichlorophenoxy acetate, 2,4,5-T). Available internal Monsanto
correspondence in the 1960s shows a knowledge of this contamination and the
fact that the dioxin contaminant was responsible for kidney and liver
damage, as well as the skin condition chloracne."

Early internal Monsanto documents reveal that samples of 2,4,5-T
and other chlorinated herbicides and chlorophenols submitted to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture in the 1970s were "doctored." In other words,
highly contaminated samples were not submitted to the government, and
Monsanto samples of penta tetra-, tetra-, tri-, dichlorophenol, and
associated herbicides never contained tetrachlorinated dioxins. These
analyses were subsequently adopted by EPA in a 1980 publication and were
used without any data from other sources as the basis for 1984 regulations
under RCRA. As a result, these regulations do not control the chlorophenol
phenoxy acetate products as acutely hazardous due to their contamination of
tetrachlorinated dioxins.

Monsanto also submitted assertions to EPA that process chemistry
would preclude the formation of tetrachlorophenol or its phenoxy acetate.
Evidence from the Kemner v. Monsanto proceedings revealed that
this process chemistry claimed by Monsanto was not always used. In
fact, off-specification dichlorophenol, known to be contaminated with
tetrachlorinated dioxin, was being used as a feedstock to make
pentachlorophenol and other chlorinated products. The result of this
alternate synthesis route is the introduction of dioxins as a
contaminants. EPA also relied on these "process chemistry" arguments by
Monsanto as a basis for not regulating most chlorophenols and 2,4-D for their
tetrachlorinated dioxin content.

Another Monsanto document introduced as evidence in the above
proceedings shows cross-contamination of a range of Monsanto products
with tetrachlorinated dioxins by the following mechanism: The same
production equipment is used without cleaning for all chlorinated phenolic
products. In 1984, when promulgating the dioxin regulations under RCRA, EPA
was only made aware of the cross contamination problem in the event that
2,4-D was made on equipment previously used to make 2,4,5-T. Thus, EPA
again was subverted from promulgating adequate regulations for products
other than 2,4-D that were cross-contaminated with dioxins.

Members of the Canadian Parliament recently directed
investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and government
scientist into the dioxin contamination of disinfectants such as
Lysol containing Monsanto's Santophen (ortho-dichloro-para-phenol),
and directed laboratory analyses of existing stocks. This disinfectant
uses the ortho-dichlorophenol, discussed above, as a feedstock,
which would introduce any dioxins present into the disinfectant.
In a 1984 letter to the Canadian government, Monsanto asserted
that their disinfectant contained no dioxin. This was later
refuted by testimony by Monsanto's chemist.

FRAUDULENT DIOXIN HEALTH STUDIES

As you indicated today, demonstrating criminal fraud in the
epidemiological studies performed by Monsanto on its
dioxin-exposed workers would necessitate bringing in appropriate
groups in EPA capable of performing scientific study audits.
(3)

You indicated, however,
that NEIC did not believe this would be a barrier to the investigation.
The following are a few key instances where obvious fraud was utilized
in the conduct of these studies:

Dr. Raymond Suskind at the University of Cincinnati was hired by
Monsanto to study the workers at Monsanto's Nitro, West Virginia plant.
Dr. Suskind stated in published studies in question that chloracne, a skin
condition was the prime indicator of high human dioxin exposures, and no
other health effects would be observed in the absence of this condition.
Unpublished studies by Suskind, however, indicate the fallacy of this
statement. No workers except those having chloracne were ever examined by
Suskind or included in his study. In other words, if no workers without
chloracne were ever examined for other health effects, there is no basis
for asserting that chloracne was "the hallmark of dioxin intoxication."
(4)

These conclusions have been repeatedly utilized by EPA, the Veterans
Administration, etc., to deny any causation by dioxin of health
effects of exposed citizens, if these persons did not exhibit chloracne.

The results of Dr. Suskind's studies also were diluted by the
fact that the exposed group contained not only individuals having
chloracne (a genuine, but not the only effect of dioxin exposure),
but also all workers having any type of skin condition such as chemical
rash. The workers could have had no or negligible dioxin exposures,
but they were included in the study as part of the heavily exposed group.
This fact was revealed only by the careful reading of the published Suskind
study.
(5)

Further, Dr. Suskind utilized statistics on the skin conditions of
workers compiled by a Monsanto clerical worker, without any independent
verification.
(6)

Dr. Suskind also covered-up the documented neurological damage from
dioxin exposures. At Workers Compensation hearings, Suskind
denied that the workers experienced any neurological health effects. In the
Kemner, et al. v. Monsanto proceedings, however, it was revealed that
Suskind had in his possession at the time examinations of the workers by
Monsanto's physician, Dr. Nestman, documenting neurological health effects.

In his later published study, Dr. Suskind denied the continuing documented
neurological health effects suffered by the workers, falsely stating that
symptoms "had cleared."

All of the Monsanto dioxin studies also suffer another fatal
flaw. The purported "dioxin unexposed" control group was selected from
other workers at the same Monsanto plant. An earlier court settlement
revealed not only that these supposedly unexposed workers were exposed to
dioxins, but also to other carcinogens. One of these carcinogens,
para-amino biphenyl, was known by Monsanto to be a human carcinogen
and it was also known that workers were heavily exposed.

Another Monsanto study involved independent medical examinations of
surviving employees by Monsanto physicians. Several hundred
former Monsanto employees were too ill to travel to participate in
the study. Monsanto refused to use the attending physicians reports of the
illness as part of their study, saying that it would introduce
inconsistencies. Thus, any critically ill dioxin-exposed workers with
cancers such as Non-Hodgkins lymphoma (associated with dioxin exposures),
were conveniently excluded from the Monsanto study.

There are numerous other flaws in the Monsanto health studies.
Each of these misrepresentations and falsifications always served to
negate any conclusions of adverse health effects from dioxins. A careful
audit of these studies by EPA's epidemiological scientists should be
obtained as part of your investigation.

The false conclusions contained in the Monsanto studies have recently
been refuted by the findings of a recent study by the National
Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH). This NIOSH study,
recently circulated by Dr. Marilyn Fingerhut for review, found a
statistically significant increase in cancers at all sites in the
Monsanto workers, when dioxin exposed workers at Monsanto and other
industrial locations were examined as
an aggregate group.(7)

Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding documents to
support your investigation, which include testimony and evidentiary documents
from the on-going Kemner v Monsanto litigation, earlier litigation in West
Virginia brought by the Monsanto workers, ongoing investigations by the
Canadian government internal Monsanto documents, as well as documentation
of the submission of the fraudulent data and studies by Monsanto to
support the rulemaking process under RCRA and other EPA authorities.